The real stories from inside the F1 paddock

Power and horsepower

Bernie Ecclestone keeps banging on to his house-trained media that there is an urgent need to change the F1 engine rules. This has been going on for more than a year and it is clear that no-one is really listening. The F1 Strategy Group talks itself round and round in circles and little really changes. So what is being achieved, if anything? The only conclusion that I have been able to come up with, which fits the facts, is that Bernie feels that his control of the sport is threatened and he is keeping everyone guessing, by constantly talking of change. Throwing in flash-bang grenades hither and thither to confuse. If there was no uncertainty about the future, perhaps more manufacturers would come in and, allied to the other big companies, would be in a position to push the sport around more.

In truth, this is already happening because Mercedes, Ferrari and Red Bull between them control nine of the 10 teams. They have been able to demand more money and more political say than they ever had in the past and Ecclestone was forced to give them what they wanted, in order to get them into line with a commercial agreement to go from 2010 to 2020. He would probably argue that he is protecting the sport from big corporations, but then he is working for a company that is sucking value out of the business and giving nothing back.

The need for control meant that there is now the deeply unfair situation in which the big teams get way more than the independents. Other manufacturers might come in if the others had not had the head-start that they have had, but one must also consider the possibility that they are staying away because they don’t like way the sport is run. Catching up is possible if there is the will to do so.

These are all elements that the sport should look at, as it plans for the future.

The engine regulations were formulated for a reason, in league with the car manufacturers, who were asked what they wanted to see in terms of technology, so to argue that the rules are keeping them out of the sport is rather eccentric. They got what they wanted and the price is irrelevant to those who can afford it, because they need to invest in the same kind of R&D one way or another. There are no restrictions on spending in F1, simply a restriction on what new parts can be applied to the power units at any one point. This is restrictive, but not THAT restrictive. It does what it was designed to do and stops an “arms race” of spending developing and the use of daft things such as qualifying engines and circuit-specific power units, while still allowing the engines to be developed. The fact that the other manufacturers cannot match Mercedes is because they were not as well-prepared and do not have the resources nor the brainpower to close the gap. But they will close the gap in time.

So why does Bernie keep on talking the sport down when he is supposed to be the promoter?

Changing the rules to go back to gas-guzzling noisy old engines might be cheaper, but that would likely drive away manufacturers and with them would go most of the money that comes to F1 outside the TV revenues and race fees. It would, of course, give the bigger teams the advantage because they have more money and more resources to build the best cars. So all it would likely do would be to exacerbate the current problem of having one dominant team. The thing that makes for the best racing is mature regulations, where finding a big advantage is almost impossible. That also reduces costs because most of the possible research has been done and so there’s not much left to try.

OK, Bernie doesn’t like the engine noise, but at nearly 85 years of age, he has lived through a series of different engine formulae and he knows that really what difference does noise really make? Fans will still come if there is a reason to come; if the price is right and the fans feel that the sport respects them. They are turned off by high prices of tickets, the switch to pay-TV and the desire of those in power to push them ever further away from the cars and the people. Noise also probably stops some people coming to races.

The cars today have around 900 horsepower and they do the same lap times as the previous cars (give or take). They accelerate wonderfully, and the braking is spectacular. They are still driven by the world’s best drivers (with perhaps one or two exceptions) and F1 is still a great spectacle.

The primary problem remains that the sport is not working for its own good.

Many worry about sport’s migration to payTV and argue that sport is a cultural activity that belongs to everyone and thus ought to be available to as many people as possible and not just those who can afford to pay. Switching to payTV means smaller audiences, less visibility and the disappearance of the role of sport as an inspiration for youngsters and ultimately less participation both in terms of players and spectators.

If Bernie wants to save the sport therefore perhaps it would be wiser to get rid of the current owners and get someone who cares.

And who cares most about the sport in the longer term? The manufacturers perhaps?

Share this:

Related

46 Responses

Bernie’s argument that the “small” teams only have themselves to blame since they DID sign agreements with FOM applies equally well to his own situation towards Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes. Nothing forced him to agree to those terms – apart from his fear of FOTA and the proposed breakaway championship.

A condition for ever getting things sorted out would surely be for ALL existing preferential agreements between FOM and the teams to be torn up, and new terms to be entered into on equal terms.

To take only one example: Williams has not won anything since 1997, McLaren not since 1998. Why should they be better treated than Sauber that has been a regular entrant for more than 20 years ?

Having been in and around F1 and Indy for some 40 years, noise is part of the game.. However making a noise about noise has done more harm than good.. Like any product its about selling it to the consumer.. weather we like it or not we are moving towards hybrid and electric power as it is politically correct, but wait, do we need this to be the core of the fastest sport in the world… A good grid of V12’s would only use the same amount of fuel that an Airbus 380 will use taxiing to its stand at heathrow !!
The point is twofold, one its really entertainment, or indeed should be, and two it should return to gladiators, minus the killing of course, watch Lauda/Hunt or Pironi/ Villenuve and even Senna, this was what we all needed and wanted…..
Silverstone cut its admissions prices marketed it well and suddenly we get 140,000 people cheering for all the brits with all of them doing a great job all week whipping up the competition…. How is it that some circuits do a fantastic job and others complain…
I watched a program a few weeks ago and in it James Hunt was in overalls with his famous “Badge” pixilated….
Bin the electrics, more engineers than NASA bring back passion and horsepower/noise…
Well i suppose I can always hope !!

Regardless of the question of engine noise, maybe other manufacturers don’t regard the cost of entering and running a team, to offer that good an ROI? Toyota are entering WRC, Porsche & Audi ( and Toyota ) are in WEC, which has all the tech of F1 without such huge expense. To be realistic Joe, why would any car maker spend £1 billion to enter F1 with a competitive machine and show it in places like Azerbaijan?
F1 is to motorsport what Gordon Gekko was to Corporate Banking. It needs to understand that throwing around £ $ or whatever, in a profligate manner, is not that impressive these days…..ask any Greek for an opinion!

Damian, it;s not just the technology that costs. If an auditor worth their salt, was allowed around F1 teams and did am open honest T&M / ROI study, many staff would be sent packing. Teams are too big, there are too many places to hide

I do think that it’s a money thing. Bernie needs a sensible number of cars. Half the grid is in danger of being forced out of business. He has to:
a) give them more money [yuck];
b) replace them with third or customer cars [tricky, reduces his leverage];
or c) cut the cost of engines [costs him nothing & the money problem goes away sufficiently for him to do nothing].

“They are turned off by high prices of tickets, the switch to pay-TV and the desire of those in power to push them ever further away from the cars and the people.” and this sentence encompasses the crux of where every issue with F1 today originates.

“I like the quieter engines. You can hear wheelspin and the crowd which adds to the spectacle.”

Agreed. I was a bit shocked and disappointed with the new sound at first but now appreciate the benefits you have listed. I wouldn’t want to go back. I now think of the old-fashioned sound as ridiculous and damaging. If the sound was *everything* then we could all just have listened to F1 on radio and not cared if it waltzed off to pay TV.

I appreciate you have to be careful what you say when it comes to CVC, but does Donald Mckenzie have any Motorsport in his blood at all? Does he really hold any passion for our sport? It doesn’t strike me he does

The v10 will always be a favourite of mine, but they are not the engines for today. The cars are still quick and adding more speed doesn’t seem to be an issue so lap records will be broken once again. Some good stuff this week Joe about getting fans better access to drivers and teams. not being a spice girl should make me eligible for a grid walk – being a spice girl should rule out the possibility completely.

Personally I think the new engines are good for the sport, but if you are going to have engines rules that mean that only major manufacturers can build competitive engines, you need to have some rules to allow wider access to them.

So I think the FIA need to cap costs of engines to the non-manufacturer teams and engines should be allocated to the manufacturer customers (including their own team) by lottery so that the manufacturer teams can’t just dominate by virtue of always having the best engine. Otherwise the sport is going to get less competitive rather than more.

The only thing that is wrong with F1 is Pay TV. All my friends who used to watch on a casual basis no longer do. There are a lot more of those than the die hard fans who will pay up or find other means. This then stops casual chat by the water cooler about the last race or whatever as they are no longer interested, this will cascade. Short term gain mentality.

Discovered your blog about a year ago and find it well written and well thought through. Your analysis of the sport finds me nodding in agreement – as someone who used to take the family to the British GP every year (£50pp + under 10’s for free – for the weekend), this dropped by the wayside as the weekend cost became prohibitive and then extortionate.

I am amazed that the technology isn’t sold more – as you say, these cars have much smaller engines and yet are matching speeds of years gone past with modern day technology which we are seeing in road cars (multiple turbos, smaller capacity engines, battery and kinetic enhancements).

I luckily get SkyF1 (pay per view) as part of an early HD package. Whilst I could save myself a few ££ by changing my package, this would result in the loss of this channel and require me to purchase a Sky Sport package – which I have no interest in at all. Sky seem to think everyone wants football and then other sports as well.

I find it sad overall, whilst my son and daughter both grew up loving the experience and spectacle that is F1, my grandchildren are sadly growing up away from it.

If CVC really needs to sell, and if the sport is really so profitable, and if the manufacturers are really committed for the long haul, surely they can get together and write up a plan and turn a marketing expense into a profit center. But the last one is a big IF?

Agree with all you say. I do think the cars are way too heavy. They look heavy, and planted, and visibly slow, instead of nimble and nervous and outrageous. I’ve come ’round as far as the noise is concerned (although for instance in Monaco the feeder classes by their sound and closeness in terms of laptimes, make F1 seems less special than in the past), but lightness would def. help.

He also thought he could buy Wimbledon or the ATP. Its always great to talk about something you know nothing about.
He hates new media but constantly shoots himself in the foot by bad mouthing his own business to this media. The message should be efficient and fast however we get “I don’t like the sound”. It reminds me of a customer who rejected filters because the part marking was in the wrong place however form, fit and function were not affected. I wasted days convincing the customer not to return the filters because the alternate was not to have any. I am not sure he has an alternate.

I have no idea whether Bernie says and does what he says and does to gain attention for himself or to divert attention from himself (I’m guessing both, plus smoke and mirrors for added confusion), but pricing the fans out of attending or watching, and saying he wants fans who can and will afford Rolexes (and yachts and all the really expensive add-ons when attending races) does bleed life from the sport. As for who cares most about the sport, I say the teams do (collectively, with some exceptions–Red Bull comes first to mind).

For the last few years I have been gradually losing patience with Mr Ecclestone to the point where now I have patience or confidence left in him whatsoever. Nobody believes him to be an honest man and, apart from a huge talent for making money for a select group, I can no longer see him as a competent man. I almost feel he has decided that when he dies the sport should die with him as a sort of final memorial. Yes, that is how strongly I feel about his “promotion” of Formula One.

Regarding the new engines I may be in a minority but I like the technology involved which seems to me to be the exact way the premier racing series should be heading and, having just come back from Silverstone, I think they still sound very good. Yes, quieter than of old but let’s be honest if one was running past your house in the night you would still complain!

What, if anything, is being said and/or done about these issues within the circles of power? Is there stuff going on behind closed doors that no one wants to be to public about?

Public complaints from teams, or Bernie, often come across as self-serving, or motivated by something other than the good of the sport. Is there more long-term thinking about the sport going on in private?

I’m just curious, because it’s one thing for fans and journalists to comment on the issues, but it’s another to actually address the problems and constructively work to improve them, which requires the teams, FIA, and rights holder to act. Do you have any insight on the insiders’ thoughts on these issues?

Who cares most about the sport in the longer term? The teams, although they wouldn’t, by their nature, be inclined to cooperate. The (car) manufacturers care for the sport only intermittently. Of the current crop and for all its recent problems, Renault probably has been most faithful to the sport, apart from Ferrari, but – as you attested many times – they use it as a substitute for advertising. Companies like BMW, Honda, Ford, Mercedes even, only compete when it suits them and Toyota only entered to spite Honda, for all the good it did them. In fact, Toyota is an object lesson in how not to run an F1 entry: corporate, slow moving (on a management level), unimaginative and hugely, ridiculously expensive for a few second places. To really be a contender you need the passion, like the racing teams and like Mercedes and even Red Bull before they turned into a whiney toddler (they were always graceless).

While it is true that pay TV leads to smaller audiences, one must take into account the added value that in most of the cases one gets for paying. The quality and depth of the coverage of thw whole weekend is miles ahead from that in free air. This is a plus for those fans that as you said want to understand the sport as a whole. Hence i don’t see the problem on having pay TV. Perhaps they should consider offering cheaper rights to free air TV, with, let’s say, a shortened package of, maybe, just the race, and limited passes to the track?

Joe, agree about the cars and drivers. They are top notch. But what about the tracks? The tracks are very neutered. When I went to Canada after 16 years I noticed the hairpin was moved in to allow for longer run off. Back in the day I thought the run off was just fine….. And I am sure they can make Austria less tight that it is….

With regard to the engine noise discussions, in my opinion the sound of F1 is loud enough, but it is a boreing sound! This is common with turbocharged evenfire 6 cylinder engines, especially with mild cams/cam timings required by the turbo to allow a broard power band and peak rpm of only high 11000. (As opposed to 18000 rpm of the normally aspirated v8s ) And a single exhaust outlet!
I don’t know what the answer is unless they could turbo one bank with it’s own exhaust and had the other bank of cylinders normally aspirated with it’s own separate exhaust system! (This system was used by Cosworth or Toyota years ago in Champcar.) This could introduce some “character/resonance” into the sound!
I can’t believe many people at the race meetings would really enjoy an excessively loud noise, e.g. the v12s and v10s of previously. It seems pretty stupid to ask for more noise, then wear ear muffs /plugs to reduce it again! Obviously TV viewers don’t care about the voluum, only the quality.
Btw the simple/logical way to bring the field closer is to spred the money more evenly between the teams, alow more testing and developement.
PK.

I live in Australia where only 50% of the races are now shown on FreeTV. The end result is that I no longer watch the Grands Prix. Even with highlights being shown the next day why watch as the result is already known and the suspense gone. So I watch the Tour de France live on SBS instead – fantastic